Re: Implement extra-offset for system positioning (issue 324810043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2017/04/29 00:36:36, david.nalesnik wrote:
> On 2017/04/28 22:49:25, thomasmorley651 wrote:

> > So I'd vote for keeping extra-offset as in your last patch-set.
> > Although I'm aware David K's point is important, I think a user
doing manual
> > positioning, is responsible to deal with possible problems
(collisions), too.

> X-offset and Y-offset don't check for collisions.  You can put systems
on top of
> each other, and move them right off the page.  (That's another
attraction of
> "extra-offset" for a name--there are plenty of warnings about
potential
> collisions.)

When in doubt, let's not invent new interfaces.  The standard for
changes done _after_ spacing is resolved is extra-offset .  Even when
just one of the extras is non-zero and making the other non-zero is of
very little usefulness.  I was merely musing over whether there was any
way to make it more useful, but then in keeping with the general
semantics used elsewhere, we should likely rather focus on making
X-offset do shifts before distance calculations and let extra-offset
work afterwards, useful or not.

https://codereview.appspot.com/324810043/